<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> on Wednesday said that existing laws are sufficient to deal with the issue of hate speeches and no "legislative vacuum" exists warranting intervention.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that creation of criminal offences and the prescription of punishments lies squarely within the legislative domain.</p><p>"The Constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions," Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict.</p>.Right to manage religious institution can't mean absence of structure: Supreme Court.<p>While declining to issue directions as sought in the petitions, the bench referred to the existing criminal law and said it deals with the offence of hate speech also.</p><p>"The precedents of this court consistently affirm that while Constitutional courts may interpret the law and issue directions to secure the enforcement of fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation," the bench said.</p><p>The bench said it would be open to the Centre and the competent legislative authorities to consider in their wisdom whether any further legislative or policy measures were warranted in light of the evolving societal challenges or to bring about suitable amendments as suggested by the Law Commission's 267th report of March 2017.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> on Wednesday said that existing laws are sufficient to deal with the issue of hate speeches and no "legislative vacuum" exists warranting intervention.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that creation of criminal offences and the prescription of punishments lies squarely within the legislative domain.</p><p>"The Constitutional scheme founded upon the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit the judiciary to create new offences or expand the contours of criminal liability through judicial directions," Justice Nath said while pronouncing the verdict.</p>.Right to manage religious institution can't mean absence of structure: Supreme Court.<p>While declining to issue directions as sought in the petitions, the bench referred to the existing criminal law and said it deals with the offence of hate speech also.</p><p>"The precedents of this court consistently affirm that while Constitutional courts may interpret the law and issue directions to secure the enforcement of fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or compel legislation," the bench said.</p><p>The bench said it would be open to the Centre and the competent legislative authorities to consider in their wisdom whether any further legislative or policy measures were warranted in light of the evolving societal challenges or to bring about suitable amendments as suggested by the Law Commission's 267th report of March 2017.</p>